[ih] Fwd: Internet at Sea

[Greg Skinner]

forwarded for Barbara

> ----- Forwarded Message -----
> From: Barbara Denny <b_a_denny at yahoo.com>
> To: Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org>
> Sent: Monday, October 6, 2025 at 10:45:00 AM PDT
> Subject: Re: [ih] Internet at Sea
> 
> See inline comments below.
> 
> On Saturday, October 4, 2025 at 03:31:27 PM PDT, Jack Haverty via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> Some better search term on discover.dtic.mil found this - the sequel to
> the report I just mentioned, published a year later:
> 
> https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA239925.pdf
> 
> Chapter XVI is titled "SIMNET" which has a special, but likely as yet
> untold, history with The Internet.
> 
> Sometime in late 1982 or early 1983, ARPA asked our "Internet" group at
> BBN to get involved with a project that might be able to use the
> emerging Internet for its communications infrastructure.  That program
> was called SIMNET, or SIMulation NETwork, and the concept was to create
> a video-game type of training tool for use in combat training.  The
> initial use was training M-1 tank crews, but the concept included other
> participants, such as helicopters.  Mike Kraley and I went to a bunch of
> meetings to brainstorm and flesh out the ideas, as part of our ongoing
> work on ARPA Internet-related contracts.
> 
> It became clear that for such "gaming" applications, network latency was
> important.  It mattered a lot.  If you fired at the enemy, you should be
> able to see the results immediately and consistently.  A training system
> had to be accurate for the things that mattered, but could cut corners
> to save costs for the things that didn't.
> 
> Inside the Internet world, that need was one of the motivations for the
> introduction of the TOS field (Type Of Service) in the IP header.  Our
> conclusion was that the Internet would have to support at least two
> different types of behavior.  Possibly more since SIMNET was also
> envisioned to simulate radio traffic and "chatter" between the crews in
> the simulation, using packet voice.
> 
> Datagrams associated with things like firing weapons or vocal snippets
> could be small, but had to get delivered quickly. Datagrams associated
> with things like detailed maps could be delivered at a more leisurely
> pace.  Terrestrial routes would be good for the former, and
> geosynchronous satellites appropriate for the latter.  Of course there
> would also need to be new appropriate routing mechanisms to make it all
> work as envisioned.
> 
> At BBN, we wrote a proposal to start an actual SIMNET project. Shortly
> thereafter, in July 1983, BBN reorganized and that project was approved
> and the contract assigned to a part of BBN that had been doing various
> training systems.  So I never got to drive an M1 tank (which was an ARPA
> mandated requirement for everyone assigned to the project).
> 
> SIMNET ended up being very successful, as detailed in that report. But
> the implementors discovered that the Internet, which hadn't implemented
> any mechanisms for TOS, couldn't provide the communications services
> that SIMNET needed.   They had to build their own private communications
> system instead.
> 
> > Can you expand on your thoughts here?  I didn't really participate in SIMNET much but I am confused about your words here. I never heard anything about people deciding they needed to build their own private communications system instead.  Do you remember when you heard this? Or was this just a recommendation? Did this ever happen or did the end of the Cold War stop this thinking?
> 
> >A little more background...
> 
>  > In the fall of 1991, I was sent to Germany for demonstrations of packet radio (DARPA effort).   It used the LPR (Low Cost Packet Radio) which as far as I know was the last version of radio hardware and software before that program ended. BBN was also sent there to support this demonstration and they were tasked with the application component.  The demonstrations were  pretty important. The observers were at the Warrior Preparation Center. (FYI, The LPRs were deployed as far away as Rammstein Air Base. I got to ride in a real Humvee as we set up the network!). Later SRI got a letter from DARPA regarding this effort.  The letter said the success of the demonstrations resulted in the military considering using the lpr in support of mobile responders for Reforger '92  and made them feel they they could extend simulation to the battalion commander ( At some point I remember hearing DARPA wanted to combine both real and simulated elements together for training purposes).  The letter also said DARPA was looking forward to breaking new ground in warfighting simulation technology.   There was no hint of some other communication system.
> 
> >I am also including a link to a BBN report covering simulation of the radio communication environment for SIMNET.  It was interesting to me because they chose SINCGARS for the model.  This report is dated January 1992 and the SRI DARPA letter is dated December 1991.
> 
> https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA244212.pdf
> 
> In retrospect, we probably didn't do enough to lay out that plan for
> coordinating the SIMNET and Internet evolution.  ARPA reorganized at
> about the same time, the ICCB became the IAB, the people involved
> changed, and the plan was lost.  SIMNET was successful, but TOS support
> in the Internet didn't happen.
> 
> > BTW, if you look at the packet radio paper recently cited, there is a flag in the packet radio E2E header that indicates a packet speech type of service.  The definition of what that means for the radio is defined.  I would think that because of the packet speech work in the 70s, the ToS  field in the IP header would have been used.  I haven't seen or heard about this so what happened?   I think there were other motivations for using this field in the IP header beyond SIMNET.
> 
> >barbara
> 
> /Jack Haverty
> 
>